Retirement Village Housing Resilience...

Retirement Village Housing Resilience Survey

Kay Saville-Smith and Ruth Fraser CRESA

June 2014

Community Resilience and Good Ageing: Doing Better in Bad Times www.goodhomes.co.nz

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was undertaken as a component of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment public good science funded research programme Community Resilience

and Good Ageing: Doing Better in Bad Times.

We would like to thank all the retirement villages who responded to the survey. In

addition we would like to thank John Collyns from the Retirement Villages Association

who assisted with the sample frame for the survey and included information on both

the research project and the survey in newsletters to RVA members. The Retirement

Villages Association has also provided useful comment on the draft report.

CRESA, its contributors, employees and Directors make every effort to ensure the accuracy of

content and validity of interpretation of its reports. Much of the data used to compile these

reports and contributing to our interpretation is supplied by others. We shall not be liable for

any loss or damage sustained by any person using this report whatever the cause of such loss

or damage.


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 PROGRAMME CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND METHOD 4

2.1 Programme Objectives and Components 4

2.2 The National Survey of Retirement Villages 5

3 THE RETIREMENT VILLAGES 7

3.1 Geographical Distribution of Retirement Villages 7

3.2 Stock Numbers and Resident Populations 7

3.3 Stock Typology and Stock Age 9

3.4 Other Residential Buildings and Living Arrangements 12

3.5 Tenure and Retirement Villages 13

4 RETIREMENT VILLAGES AND ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS 15

5 READYING FOR ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS 16

5.1 Information for Emergency Planning and Response 16

5.2 Retirement Villages and Resilient Infrastructure 17

5.3 Emergency Planning and Response 19

6 ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS & RETIREMENT VILLAGES 20

7

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT REFERENCES

22

TABLES

Table 3.1 Participant Retirement Villages by Region 7

Table 3.2 Retirement Village Stock Profile and NZ’s Private Dwelling Stock in 2013 10

Table 3.3 Housing Stock Mix across Respondent Retirement Villages 12

Table 4.1 Number of Adverse Events Experienced in Last Decade 15

Table 4.2 Adverse Event Types Experienced in Last Decade 15

FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Retirement Village Housing Stock 8

Figure 3.2 Retirement Village Size by Operator Type 9

Figure 3.3 Retirement Village by Year of Construction 9


Figure 3.4 Domestic Dwelling Floor Areas and Average Household Size 1974-2012 10

Figure 3.5 Retirement Village Stock Profile 11

Figure 3.6 Dwelling Types in the National Housing and Retirement Village Stocks 11

Figure 3.7 Retirement Villages and Tenure 14

Figure 4.1 Impacts of Adverse Natural Events and Retirement Villages in the Last Decade

15

Figure 5.1 On-site Generation by Retirement Village Type 17

Figure 5.2 On-Site Alternative Water Supply by Retirement Village Type 18

Community Resilience and Good Ageing: Doing Better in Bad Times

www.goodhomes.co.nz 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Retirement villages contribute a small but growing proportion of New Zealand’s

dwelling stock. This survey suggests that there are about 25,600 older people living in

RVA member and registered retirement villages. The total number of retirement village

units stands at around 24,000 dwellings. That is, about 1.5 percent of New Zealand’s

private housing stock. This survey suggest that about 4.2 percent of people aged 65

years or more are living in retirement villages. This is slightly less than the 4.5 percent

penetration assumed in the New Zealand Retirement Village Database (NZRVD). The

NZRVD assumes a penetration rate among those aged 75 years or more of 10.5 percent

in 2013.1

The retirement village sector is made up of a diversity of entities including public

companies listed on the New Zealand stockmarket (NZX). The publically listed

companies, Ryman, Summerset and Metlifecare, are strongly in expansionary mode

with all those companies announcing stock additions. Ryman has recently acquired a

Birkenhead site in Auckland and has told shareholders that it intends to announce four

more sites in 2014. Summerset is targeting the delivery of at least three hundred new

units annually while Metlifecare is intending the delivery of around 840 additional units

in the short term. Between them Summerset and Metlifecare deliver about 5,450 units.

The NZRVD 2013 forecasts include over 10,000 additional units across the sector and

around forty new villages in development yet to be registered.

Only a minority of older people move into retirement villages. Those who do are most

likely to have been owner occupiers. The attraction of a retirement village is fourfold:

Companionship.

Access to a higher performing and newer dwelling than their existing home.

A less onerous lifestyle in which individuals can choose not to be involved in home

or garden maintenance and, possibly, cooking and other household tasks, while

accessing ‘on-the-spot’ recreational amenities and maintaining independence.

A safe and secure environment.2

These themes are also prominent in the advertising that retirement villages themselves

promulgate. The sector presents itself to its market as delivering a lifestyle while

simultaneously providing older people support and independence, and an environment

which is managed but over which older people can exercise choice.

The combination of an independent life with a managed environment raises some very

real issues within the context of planning, preparation and recovery from adverse

natural events. Where does the boundary between the responsibilities of the individual

resident and the village lie? How clear is that boundary? And what are the implications

for the preparation of residents, appropriate response during an adverse event and

recovery from such adverse events?

Of course these issues were thrown into stark relief by the Canterbury earthquakes. The

particular touch point then was the issue of insurance cover, the extent to which

residents or a retirement village owner was the beneficiary of insurance compensation,

and how and for what purpose insurance compensation could be used. In 2013 new

1 Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013. 2 James, B. and K. Saville-Smith, 2011.



requirements were imposed on retirement villages to make those arrangements, and

their implications for residents, transparent.

There has been less focus on understanding how residents within retirement villages or

retirement village operators deal with the issues of preparedness and planning for

adverse natural events. Yet retirement villages present both opportunities for effective

response and very particular challenges. The enclave nature of villages can be a strength

in so far as they can constitute a space in which individual residents may have

longstanding interactions and friendships with other village residents. Such networks

in the wider community have been found in emergencies like the Canterbury

earthquakes to be crucial to first response and on-going support. Many retirement

villages also have communal facilities that might potentially provide safe alternative,

emergency, short-term shelter in the event that one or more dwellings require

evacuation. While neighbourhoods rely on voluntary neighbourhood support for any

collective response to an adverse natural event, retirement villages have onsite staff and

many have residents committees.

There are, however, also challenges. First, while it is assumed that retirement villages

are akin to stable-state villages, this is not the case. Residential churn is generated by

both entry of new residents and exit by others. Residents can move to other

accommodation within the village or move out of the village entirely. Of course,

retirement villages, like any locality, lose residents because of deaths. Most

importantly, however, many retirement villages are subject to considerable expansion

with the addition of dwellings as well as facilities for rest home or hospital level care.

Where there is staged development of retirement villages it cannot be assumed that

there is a high degree of familiarity between residents within the village.

Retirement villages also present a challenge because they typically have more

intensified dwelling densities than surrounding neighbourhoods. As such they

constitute significant concentrations of older people. Older people can bring a range of

skills useful to adverse event preparation, response and recovery. Research

internationally also shows that that older people can be very vulnerable to adverse

natural events such as storms, flooding and extreme heat or cold.3 The age uniformity

of the resident population and the tendency for some retirement villages to be enclaved

and separated from surrounding neighbourhoods mean that the dynamics of response

in retirement villages are likely to be different from the dynamics of response in

neighbourhoods.

The growth of retirement villages and their potentialities and as well as challenges in

adverse events have prompted this component of the research programme into older

people and community resilience – Resilient Communities: Older People Doing Better

in Bad Times. This report presents data generated by a national survey of retirement

villages. It details their experiences and how they are approaching the prospects of

adverse natural events at the village scale. It is structured as follows:

Section 2 sets out the objectives of the Resilient Communities: Older People Doing

Better in Bad Times and the method for the retirement village survey.

3 AARP Public Policy Institute, 2006; Ardalan, A. Mazaheri, M. Vanrooyen M. Mowafi, H. Nedjat, S.

Holakouie Naiei, K and Russell, M., 2010; Carswell, S., 2011; CDC Healthy Aging Program, 2006;

HelpAge International, 2008; Miller, A., and B. Arquilla, 2008; Reese, S., Johnston, D., Tuohy, R.,

Becker, J., and M. Coomer, 2011; World Health Organization, 2008.



Section 3 profiles the retirement villages participating in the national survey.

Section 4 presents data relating to the experience of adverse natural events among

the retirement villages participating in the national survey.

Section 5 focuses on the way in which retirement villages approach planning,

preparation and response to adverse natural events.

Section 6 makes some broader comments on the inter-relationship between resident

and retirement village expectations and responsibilities in the context of adverse

events.



2. PROGRAMME CONTEXT, OBJECTIVES AND METHOD

The Resilient Communities: Older People Doing Better in Bad Times recognises that

New Zealand is a vulnerable landscape in which our communities are often affected by

adverse natural events. The 2010/11 Canterbury and 2013 Cook Strait earthquakes have

heightened awareness of the impacts of earthquakes. But communities and individuals

are also frequently exposed to events such as flooding, coastal inundation, heavy snow,

land subsidence and storms. Sometimes the impacts of those events are limited to small

numbers of people or relatively low levels of inconvenience and damage. In other

situations, damage can be extensive and individuals and communities can become

isolated and without access to basic amenities, particularly electricity for days. In those

times, individuals and communities are often, for some time at least, on their own.

Staying safe during adverse natural events is only one part of what can be a long road

to recovery for individuals and communities. Even where events have affected very

small communities the impacts can be profound.

This research programme focuses particularly on weather related adverse events. This

is partly because there is already a considerable platform of research around and

attention given to the impact of earthquakes. It is partly because weather related events

make up the bulk of events to which people in New Zealand are exposed. Between 1920

and 1983, New Zealand had 935 severe floods. From 1968 to 2011, 94 percent of

insurance claims related to events other than earthquakes. Over the two years of this

research programme there have been at least seven major weather events.

The research is not, however, primarily about adverse natural events. It is about how

older people can both assist their communities to be more resilient and be assisted to

recover more quickly with the least cost to themselves and others from those events. It

has been prompted by a number of factors. Firstly, the structural ageing of New

Zealand’s population means that older people are going to constitute increasingly

higher proportions of the populations of many local communities. The resilience and

recovery of communities are, consequently, going to depend more and more on the

skills and resilience of older people themselves. Second, there is substantial evidence

that older people can be particularly vulnerable to injury and negative health impacts

associated with adverse events. Third, adverse events can precipitate older people’s

movement into higher dependency living to the loss of their communities.

2.1 Programme Objectives and Components

The goal of Resilient Communities: Older People Doing Better in Bad Times is to

encourage the development of community resilience through older people having

support and services to help themselves and their communities respond to, and recover

from adverse natural events, such as floods, slips, bushfire, earthquakes, coastal hazards

and extreme weather. The aim is to provide research that will contribute to older people,

their communities, and agencies working to:

Reduce the risk of older people taking up costly, high dependency care or being

displaced from their communities as a result of adverse events;

Realise the potential of older people to actively support community responses and

restoration during and subsequent to adverse events; and

Retain the social and economic contribution older people make to communities

when they age in place and experience positive ageing despite adverse events.



The research is designed to do this by:

Helping stakeholders and older people themselves to understand the vulnerabilities

of older people in adverse natural events;

Identifying ways to integrate models and services for positive ageing and

community resilience into adverse event planning, response, and recovery; and

Developing resources to allow older people to make their dwellings resilient and

optimise their financial and accommodation security during and after adverse

natural events.

The research is organised around six key questions and three objectives set out below.

How vulnerable are NZ’s older people to adverse natural events such as storms, floods, slips and seismic events and are their needs and expertise integrated into community responses? What factors push older people from their homes because of adverse, natural events into higher dependency and disengage them from their communities and what are the implications of displacement?

Objective 1: Older People & Communities: Resilience in Adverse Events To enhance outcomes of communities and older people dealing with adverse natural events by establishing the: (a) vulnerabilities of older people to adverse natural events when living in the community; (b) extent to which adverse response and recovery plans recognise particular needs and potential contributions of older people; (c) extent to which older people’s services integrate adverse event crisis and recovery.

How can positive ageing models and services be integrated into community resilience? How can older people be engaged in community resilience planning and what is the potential of digital and smart technologies and capability building to improve outcomes for older people and their communities in the context of adverse events?

Objective 2: community resilience: smart people, smart plans, smart technologies: to realise older people’s potential to self-help and contribute to community crisis and recovery by: (a) identifying ways to integrate positive ageing and community resilience models to meet adverse natural events; (b) developing and testing processes for crisis and recovery planning with older people and key agencies in rural, provincial and urban settings; (c) assessing technological solutions to locating and responding to older people living in the community; (d) developing and testing resource kits for capability building among older people and key sectors responding to older people in adverse events.

What dwellings protect older people during adverse, natural events and how can restoration costs and time be reduced to enable older people to resume active lives within their communities? What income, financial and insurance products and assistance do older people need to secure their quality of life given the risks of hard to predict, severe adverse events impacting on their community?

Objective 3: Securing Older People’s Futures: Dwellings that Protect & Optimise Recovery: To improve older people’s futures after adverse events: (a) through dwelling materials, design and critical systems that better protect older people in adverse events and easier and more affordable restoration of dwellings; and (b) protecting older people’s financial and living security by enabling older people in different tenures to make effective choices and investments in their financial and accommodation security.

2.2 The National Survey of Retirement Villages

The survey of retirement villages was undertaken using a self-complete structured

questionnaire (Annex A). The survey consists of 23 mostly closed-ended questions with

opportunities for further comment. The data collected in the survey includes the number

of residents and units within each village, village locations and site proximity to rivers,

streams and coasts, the experiences of past adverse natural events, and aspects of

planning and process that shape the way in which retirement villages approach

preparation, planning, recovery and resilience.



Not all developments targeting older people are registered retirement villages. There

are 351 retirement villages registered with the New Zealand Companies Office. 4

Among the registered retirement villages, almost 80 percent were fully accredited or

provisional members of the Retirement Villages Association (RVA).5 In relation to

retirement village units, it is estimated that 95 percent are delivered by retirement

villages that are members of the RVA.

The national survey was undertaken with RVA members. The survey targeted the

retirement village itself not the corporate operators of retirement villages, although in

some cases the national office of some operators co-ordinated their villages’ responses

or provided the data sought through the survey for each of their villages. With the help

of the RVA, 287 retirement villages were identified with suitable surveying contacts.

Of the 287 retirement villages invited to participate in the survey, 189 villages

completed a survey return. Of the remainder, four villages were not currently operating.

One of those retirement villages was in a post-earthquake red zone in Christchurch and

was unable to be occupied or rebuilt. One was still under construction, and two were

no longer providing retirement village accommodation. Nine villages refused, and the

remaining villages did not supply a response within the survey period. The response

rate is 65.9 percent.

This high response rate can be attributed to the receptivity of retirement village

managers to whom the survey was addressed, the support of the RVA, the structure of

the questionnaire, and the considerable effort put into follow-up with retirement

villages. Where requested, villages were re-sent hard copy or electronic copies of

surveys and in a small number of cases surveys were completed over the phone. A

number of individual villages referred the survey to their head office and two of the

corporate group villages chose to answer some or all of the survey questions on behalf

of their villages.

Surveying was completed over September and October 2013. All questions were pre-

coded and analysed in SPSS using both univariate and bivariate analysis.

4 Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013. 5 Martin Jenkins, 2010a.



3. THE RETIREMENT VILLAGES

This section is concerned with the profile of retirement villages with a particular

emphasis on their stock numbers, building typologies, tenure mechanism, amenities and

the number of residents living within retirement villages. The numbers of dwelling

stock and, therefore, the people residing in a village is indicative of the considerable

diversity of retirement villages across the sector. The tenure mechanisms used by

retirement villages and the stock profile of retirement villages shows some similarity

across the sector irrespective of retirement village size.

3.1 Geographical Distribution of Retirement Villages

The participating retirement villages have a geographical profile similar to the

distribution of RVA member retirement villages throughout New Zealand (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1: Participant Retirement Villages by Region

Region Retirement

Villages

% Retirement

Villages

Participating Retirement

Villages

% Participating Retirement

Villages

Northland 10 3.5% 7 3.7%

Auckland 60 20.9% 41 21.7%

Waikato 22 7.7% 15 7.9%

Bay of Plenty 39 13.6% 24 12.7%

Gisborne 4 1.4% 4 2.1%

Hawkes Bay 12 4.2% 7 3.7%

Taranaki 10 3.5% 9 4.8%

Manawatu/Wanganui 22 7.7% 12 6.3%

Wellington 24 8.4% 19 10.1%

Nelson/Tasman 10 3.5% 6 3.2%

Marlborough 8 2.8% 3 1.6%

West Coast 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Canterbury 52 18.1% 29 15.3%

Otago 9 3.1% 8 4.2%

Southland 5 1.7% 5 2.6%

Total 287 100.0% 189 100.0%

Of the 189 participant retirement villages nearly three-quarters (73 percent) are located

in the North Island with the majority located in Auckland and the Bay of Plenty.

Although retirement villages tend to be enclaved, most are built within the outer suburbs

or proximate to urban settlements. Of the retirement villages participating in the

national survey, 88.4 percent reported that public transport is within a ten minute walk

of the retirement village.

3.2 Stock Numbers and Resident Populations

Collectively the villages in this survey deliver 15,623 units to the national dwelling

stock. It is estimated that they constitute almost two thirds of the retirement village

stock of around 24,000 units. Retirement village units make up 1.5 percent of New

Zealand’s national stock of private dwellings which in the 2013 census numbered

1,561,959.



On average, the participant villages provide 82 dwelling units. However, the range of

stock sizes across retirement villages is considerable. The participating retirement

village providing the smallest number of units delivers only four dwellings while the

retirement village that provides the highest number of units provides 383 dwellings

(Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Retirement Village Housing Stock

The New Zealand Retirement Village Database (NZRVD) 6 estimates the average

number of units in New Zealand retirement villages to be sixty-nine. This is consistent

with the resilience survey and a 2010 survey of the sector commissioned by the

Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement, although the expansion of

retirement villages particularly by listed companies is evident in the 2013 national

survey data.

The NZRVD 2013 suggests that the sector is increasingly dominated by five large

corporate entities which deliver almost 49.2 percent of the stock. The 2010 Commission

for Financial Literacy and Retirement survey found that although these commercial

operators dominate the retirement village sector, charitable trusts and not for profit

organisations were much more obvious in the smaller villages (Figure 3.2). That pattern

is likely to have been maintained.

The resident population of retirement villages is more difficult to establish than the

number of units within a retirement village. Neither retirement villages nor operating

companies with multiple village sites are constrained to maintain a census of occupants.

Twenty-three participant retirement villages were unable to report accurately on the

number of residents within their village. Over the remaining 166 retirement villages, a

total of 14,624 residents were reported. Occupancy rates in the participating retirement

villages that reported both numbers of units and numbers of residents is 1.22 people per

unit. This is probably an overstatement of the cross-stock average. The resident

population probably lies between 25,600 and a little over 27,000.7

6 Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013. 7 Our estimate is somewhat lower than the NZRVD estimate of 27,287 across the whole sector which

includes retirement villages that are not members of the RVA.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1-25 dwellings 26-50 dwellings 51-75 dwellings 76-100dwellings

101-200dwellings

201+ dwellings

NU

MB

ER O

F R

ETIR

EMEN

T V

ILLA

GES



Figure 3.2 Retirement Village Size by Operator Type8

3.3 Stock Typology and Stock Age

Only 13.3 percent of participant retirement villages report that they built stock prior to

1978 before the introduction of mandatory insulation in domestic buildings. Around 70

percent of villages reported building some or all of the dwellings in their village during

the 1978-2006 period while 45 percent have built some or all of the dwellings in their

village after 2006 (Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3 Retirement Village by Year of Construction9

Of the 15,623 dwelling units reported by the participant retirement villages, villages

reported the number of bedrooms for 12,357 dwelling units and the building type for

13,366 dwelling units. This data shows that the retirement village stock is substantially

different from New Zealand’s dwellings stock as a whole.

8 Martin Jenkins, 2011b. 9 Multiple answers possible.

small villages medium villages large villages

Not-for-profit 45.5% 25.0% 37.5%

Commercial 54.5% 75.0% 62.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%P

erce

nt

of

Vill

ages

13.3%

70.4%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Before 1978 1978-2006 Post 2006

Per

cen

t o

f V

illag

es

Year of construction



New Zealand’s housing stock as a whole is dominated by three or more bedroom

dwellings. There has also been a persistent increase in the size of the new-built New

Zealand housing stock over the last thirty years. This has occurred despite falling

household sizes (Figure 3.4).

Figure 3.4: Domestic Dwelling Floor Areas and Average Household Size 1974-2012

As Table 3.2 shows, almost a third of the retirement village stock is made up of one

bedroom, bed-sitting or studio units. The dominant stock size is a two bedroom unit

with a residual set of dwellings with larger numbers of bedrooms.

Table 3.2: Retirement Village Stock Profile and NZ’s Private Dwelling Stock in 2013

Number of bedrooms Retirement Villages NZ Dwelling Stock

Dwellings % Stock Dwellings % Stock

1-bedroom, bed-sit, studio 3,945 31.9 79,320 5.5

2-bedrooms 7,266 58.8 273,207 18.9

3 or more bedrooms 1,146 9.3 1,093,830 75.6

Total 12,357 100 1,446,357 100

In relation to stock types, retirement villages also have a very different new-build

pattern than the rest of the new-built stock. The proportions of stock types reported by

the participant retirement villages are set out in Figure 3.5. Over half the retirement

village stock consists of semi-detached and low-rise multi-units. Detached dwellings

make up only a fifth of the stock while well over a quarter of the retirement village

stock consists of apartments. The stock across the retirement village sector shows a

more diverse stock than the national dwelling stock. Over three-quarters (76.6 percent)

of New Zealand’s households in the 2013 census live in stand-alone or detached

dwellings. The extent of the considerable divergence between the national stock profile

and the retirement village stock profile is evident in Figure 3.6.

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

150.0

175.0

200.0

Nu

mb

er o

f p

eop

le

Flo

or

area

m2

Average floor area Average household size



Figure 3.5 Retirement Village Stock Profile

Figure 3.6 Dwelling Types in the National Housing and Retirement Village Stocks

Apartments28%

Multi-units15%

Semi-detached37%

Detached20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Retirement Village National Stock

Apartments Low rise multi & semi-detached Detached



A typical retirement village has a variety of stock types, although half report having no

stand-alone dwellings at all (Table 3.3). Some 41 per cent of retirement villages have

only one type of dwelling stock. Over a third of those villages (39 per cent) had semi-

detached stock. Two fifths (44.4 per cent) of villages may be categorised as dual stock

villages. Retirement villages with a combination of semi-detached and stand-alone

dwellings are most common among dual stock villages. Less than a fifth (18.6 per cent)

of retirement villages have more than three types of dwellings.

Table 3.3 Housing Stock Mix across Respondent Retirement Villages

Village Stock Mix Villages % All

Villages

% by Village Type

Single Stock Villages 77 41 100

Stand-alone only 21 11.2 27.3

Semi-detached only 30 16.0 39.0

Low rise multi-units only 12 6.4 15.6

Apartment/tower only 14 7.4 18.2

Dual Stock Villages 76 40.4 100

Stand-alone and semi-detached 25 13.3 32.9

Stand-alone and low-rise multi units 9 4.8 11.8

Stand-alone and apartment/tower 6 3.2 7.9

Semi-detached and low-rise multi-units 10 5.3 13.2

Semi-detached and apartment/tower 21 11.2 27.6

Low rise multi-units and apartments 5 2.7 6.6

Mixed Stock Villages 35 18.6 100

Stand-alone, semi-detached, and low rise multi-units 13 6.9 37.1

Stand-alone, semi-detached, and apartment/tower 12 6.4 34.3

Stand-alone, low rise multi-units, apartment/tower 2 1.1 5.7

Semi-detached, low rise multi-units, apartment/tower 2 1.1 5.7

Stand-alone, semi-detached, low rise multi-units, apartment/tower 6 3.2 17.1

3.4 Other Residential Buildings and Living Arrangements

Retirement villages have developed around three different markets, albeit all somewhat

overlapping and all focused on older people and retirement:

Lifestyle Market – There is a set of villages that have been developed specifically

as a lifestyle choice. These have focused on the provision of recreational facilities

and giving residents opportunities to reduce their commitments to housekeeping,

home maintenance and section maintenance with serviced grounds, provision of

meals if desired and housekeeping services. Some retirement villages are so

committed to the lifestyle concept, they explicitly require residents to leave the

village if they require on-going support or care.

Downsizing Market – Retirement villages present themselves as a way for older

people to gain multiple benefits by selling larger family homes and moving to

smaller units. These potential benefits range from having more manageable and

higher performing homes to releasing equity.

Care and Support Market – The third market segment serviced by the retirement

village sector has to some extent been an evolution of the rest home sector. Indeed,

some retirement villages have been developed on rest home sites. Other retirement



villages have incorporated services to allow for a progressive provision of support

within the retirement village. This sometimes involves moving from so-called

independent living dwellings through to serviced apartments to providing higher

dependency care to rest home level and the provision of dementia care or hospital

care. While rest home and aged care facilities may share sites with retirement

villages, their regulation and funding are quite separate from the regulatory

framework that governs the retirement village sector.

According to the 2010 survey of retirement villages undertaken by the Commission for

Financial Literacy and Retirement, almost all villages reported independent living units

(93.3 per cent) with 45.8 per cent reporting serviced apartments. Just over half (51.1

per cent) had a rest home and 13.3 per cent of retirement villages reported the provision

of specialist care units.10 That is, around two thirds (64.4 per cent) had a rest home or

aged care facility. This appears to have increased to around 65 percent in 2013.11

The retirement villages participating in this 2013 retirement village resilience survey

show higher proportions of villages co-located with rest homes or aged care facilities.

Almost three quarters (73.5 per cent) reported higher dependency facilities attached to

the retirement village. This pattern is consistent with three markets dynamics in the

retirement village sector.

Some rest homes have expanded into the retirement village sector by the development

of independent living units. Similarly, some retirement villages have added rest home

and/or aged care facilities to their existing delivery of independent living units. It also

reflects the expansion of certain corporates into the retirement village sector in recent

years which have business models based on the delivery of a continuum of services

from independent living to care for those with dependent service needs.

3.5 Tenure and Retirement Villages

Retirement villages typically use licences to occupy but there are other tenures within

the retirement village sector.

In 2010, 5.4 percent of retirement villages used predominantly unit titles and a similar

proportion had predominantly rental units. Over 80 percent predominantly used licenses

to occupy. 12 This 2013 resilience survey with retirement villages found a similar

pattern, although the use of licences to occupy has intensified.

In all, 96.3 percent of participant retirement villages reported that they used licenses to

occupy. Unit titles, which provide a form of owner occupation, are used by 4.2 percent

of retirement villages. The provision of rented dwellings has fallen to 1.6 percent of

retirement villages which have one or more rental units within their village (Figure 3.7).

This profile may reflect the participants in the survey. It is generally believed within

the industry that unit titles make up a higher proportion, possibly up to 20 percent, of

tenures in retirement villages.

10 Martin Jenkins 2010b. 11 Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013. 12 Martin Jenkins 2010b.



Figure 3.7 Retirement Villages and Tenure

License to Occupy94%

Owner Ocupation4%

Rental2%



4. RETIREMENT VILLAGES AND ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS

A substantial minority (44.6 per cent) of the participant retirement villages in the 2013

resilience survey have been affected by adverse events. Some have been affected by

more than one type of event in the last decade (Table 4.1). Table 4.2 shows the effects

of the Canterbury and the Cook Strait earthquakes with 20.6 per cent having been

affected by earthquakes in the last ten years. Also prominent among the range of events

affecting retirement villages are weather related events: storms, extreme winter events

and flooding.

Table 4.1 Number of Adverse Events Experienced in Last Decade

Event Types Experienced Retirement

Villages % Retirement

Villages

No adverse events 107 56.6

1 type of adverse event 49 25.9

2 types of adverse events 27 14.3

3 types of adverse events 6 3.2

Total 189 100.0

Table 4.2 Adverse Event Types Experienced in Last Decade

Type of Event Retirement

Villages % Retirement

Villages

Affected by an earthquake 39 20.6

Affected by storm/thunderstorm/cyclone 27 14.3

Affected by a heavy snowfall, snow storm or blizzard 26 13.8

Affected by a flooding 17 9.0

Affected by a tornado 2 1.1

Affected by a landslide 1 0.5

Affected by a volcanic eruption 1 0.5

Only 5.8 per cent of retirement villages report that they have had to evacuate residents

in the last ten years because of an adverse natural event. However, 13.2 per cent of

retirement villages report that an adverse natural event has resulted in damage to

building components of one or more dwellings in the village such as roofs, exterior

walls or foundations. Certainly, the impact of weather related adverse events should not

be under-estimated. Over two-fifths (43.4 per cent) of retirement villages report that

they have had one or more dwellings with water inside due to leaks in the roof, windows

or flooding during adverse natural events (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Impacts of Adverse Natural Events and Retirement Villages in Last Decade

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Water Inside Dwellings Damage to foundations, roofs,or exterior walls

Evacuated Residents

Nu

mb

er o

f R

etir

emen

t V

illag

es



5. READYING FOR ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS

This section focuses on the way in which retirement villages approach planning,

preparation and response to adverse natural events. It focuses on two aspects of

preparation and response. First, it considers the extent to which retirement villages

capture information relevant to emergency response and the impacts of past events.

Second, it looks at the variety of approaches of retirement villages take to emergency

planning.

5.1 Information for Emergency Planning and Response

Fundamental to the ability of retirement villages to plan for and respond to adverse

events is an understanding of the individuals and buildings within the village.

Knowledge of prior adverse events is also important for two reasons. First, the

experience of an adverse event may be indicative of a vulnerability to similar events in

the future. After the experience of the Canterbury and the Cook Strait earthquakes, this

idea has become commonly accepted in relation to earthquakes. It is also the case,

however, with more common events in New Zealand such as river, storm water and

coastal flooding. Second, prior events also provide an opportunity to learn.

Record Keeping Around Past Events

Almost two thirds (64 percent) keep records of adverse natural events that have affected

the retirement village or maintain a process for recording information for future adverse

natural events. Overall, across all the retirement villages, however, less than half report

that they have a process for recording information about repair completion times,

numbers of residents affected, resident evacuation, rehousing and interruption of key

services. The lack of systematic processes for recording and accessing that information

is a missed opportunity for retirement villages to progressively improve their risk

management around adverse natural events.

Among the retirement villages that do retain records or have a records process for future

events, most focus on records necessary to make insurance claims. For instance, 87.6

percent of these retirement villages recorded the remedial work required. A similar

proportion (86.8 percent) of the 64 percent of retirement villages with a record process

for adverse events, record whether an insurance claim was filed and 84.3 percent have

a process for recording the amount filed in an insurance claim.

By way of contrast, even retirement villages with a dedicated recording process for

adverse natural events are less likely to focus on aspects of response and recovery that

directly affect residents. Only 64.5 percent of retirement villages with a recording

process captured information on the time taken to complete repairs subsequent to a

damaging event. A slightly smaller proportion, (60.3 percent) have a process for

recording resident rehousing. Higher proportions of retirement villages record

evacuation or interruption to key services (both 71.9 percent). Almost three quarters

(74.4 percent) have a process for recording the number of residents affected.

Information about Village Residents for Emergency Purposes

Almost all retirement villages maintain a register of residents’ next of kin who can be

contacted in a case of emergency evacuation. The majority also maintain registers of

residents with various disabilities. In relation to mobility disability, 76.7 percent of

villages report retaining a register and 74.6 percent of retirement villages report keeping



registers of residents with impaired hearing or sight (74.6 percent). Over two thirds

(69.3 percent) of retirement villages report that they have a register of residents

requiring medication. The extent to which these registers are regularly updated is

unclear. Notably, given that loss of electricity is common in adverse natural events,

only 51.9 percent of retirement villages report keeping a register of residents who are

dependent on electrical supply for life supporting equipment.

5.2 Retirement Villages and Resilient Infrastructure

Many retirement villages are developed as a staged master plan settlement. Others

develop more organically. Either way, retirement villages offer opportunities for the

incorporation of resiliency features into the village infrastructure. This can range from

on-site power generation to alternative water supplies and provision of alternative fuels

for basic activities such as cooking. The survey of retirement villages shows that some

of these features are relatively common but others are less so.

Less than a third (32.3 percent) of retirement villages report that they have an on-site

generator if power is cut, although 60.3 percent report having an on-site alternative

water supply such as water tanks. Around 6 percent of retirement villages have a

sewerage system that is independent from the urban reticulated system. Some villages

maintain the ability to cook when power is no longer available because they have

bottled gas cooking. A small number of retirement villages report that future

development plans include the provision of a generator and other facilities which will

increase capacity to deal with adverse events. There is a statistically significant

association between whether a retirement village has a rest home or aged care facility

and the availability of resilient infrastructure (Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2).

Figure 5.1 On-site Generation by Retirement Village Type

Rest home or aged-care facilityattached

No rest home or aged-care facility

No on-site generator 60.1% 88.0%

On-site generator 39.9% 12.0%



Figure 5.2 On-site Alternative Water Supply by Retirement Village Type

Some 90.2 percent of the retirement villages with on-site generators also had a rest

home or aged care facility attached. Having a rest home or aged care facility attached

does not always mean that an on-site generator is available. Indeed, only 59.7 percent

of retirement villages with rest homes or aged care facilities also had an on-site

generator. It is notable that a number of the retirement villages participating in this

survey indicated the importance of rest home and aged care hospital facilities in their

own evacuation and adverse event response planning.

5.3 Emergency Planning and Response

Retirement villages approach emergency response planning and implementation in a

diversity of ways. Only a minority (12 percent) of retirement villages report no process

of emergency planning or implementation. Just over half (55 percent) report emergency

planning and the implementation of emergency plans is undertaken by the retirement

village either locally or, if there is one, at their national office.

Around a third of retirement villages involve residents in emergency planning and

implementation. In the case of two retirement villages this function is reported as solely

the responsibility of the residents committee. Over a third of retirement villages (39.7

percent) report that a dedicated staff member has responsibility for emergency planning

and implementation rather than those activities being undertaken as part of generalised

responsibilities of employees or the village manager.

The majority of retirement villages do not involve residents as a group in emergency

planning and implementation. Nevertheless, most (86.2 percent) retirement villages

report that they provide individual residents with a face-to-face induction process when

a resident moves into a dwelling or unit. The remainder tend to rely on the provision

Rest home or aged-care facilityattached

No rest home or aged-care facility

No alternative water supply 24.6% 79.6%

Alternative water supply 75.4% 20.4%



of written material, although some retirement villages report that they also have

periodic visits and workshops with residents presented by local emergency services.

Over a third (38.1 percent) of retirement villages either reported no or very nebulous

evacuation arrangements or that residents are responsible for finding alternative shelter

if evacuation is required. A similar proportion (37 percent) report they have an

evacuation facility on-site, while a fifth (20.6 percent) of retirement villages report that

they have a pre-arranged plan to evacuate residents to a facility off-site. A small

number of retirement villages have clear plans to deal with escalating events by having

both plans to evacuate to facilities on-site then, if necessary, to evacuate to specific

destinations off-site.

A few retirement villages were reviewing the emergency plans at the time of surveying.

Among the thirty retirement villages (15.9 percent) that had rather undefined plans for

evacuation, their plans varied from contacting relatives to waiting and seeing what was

available in the way of alternative accommodation to moving residents to other villages

within the same corporate or evacuating to civil defence provided evacuation facilities,

local schools, church halls, or a community centre outside the village. Others appear to

have developed clear plans and supportive infrastructure to deal with adverse natural

events. For instance, one retirement village reports that it has designed the “community

club [to] have on-site emergency heating, lighting, radio and cooking facilities.”



6. ADVERSE NATURAL EVENTS & RETIREMENT VILLAGES

Retirement Villages present older people with a unique living space. They

simultaneously promote the notion of independent living while offering a ‘carefree’,

managed environment. Many of the responsibilities that would rest on owner occupiers,

and indeed most tenants, in the mainstream housing sector are centralised and managed

collectively by a retirement village operator. There are variations between retirement

villages, but they range from managing the occasional maintenance, renovations and

refurbishment of units to the day to day management of grounds. Many of the financial

and supply transactions that mainstream householders must deal with from payment of

property and water rates to the supply of electricity to the management of dwelling

insurance can be centralised in retirement villages and relieve individual residents of

their day to day management.

There are a number of other ways in which retirement villages offer older people the

opportunity to have aspects of their lives managed for them. Many retirement villages

provide recreational centres and facilities. Some organise access to services such as

hair dressing and podiatry by bringing providers on-site. There are also opportunities

to have a personal checking service to ensure that if no movement is observed in a unit

then a safety check is made. Many provide transport to main centres for recreational

trips, shopping and to facilitate access to health and other services. Of course, as

previously mentioned some retirement villages further the service and managerial

support dimensions of retirement village living through the provision of a continuum

of living environments from independent living units through serviced apartments and

into rest home and aged care facilities.

In the context of preparing for and managing the response to recovery from adverse

events, this dual approach of independent living and managed environments leads to

ambiguities around the relative responsibilities of retirement villages and individual

residents respectively. Less than forty percent of retirement villages report they

organise responsibilities for planning, preparation and response as a dedicated job

function, as opposed to generalised expectation of management. The administrative

and record processes associated with adverse natural event response and recovery tend

to be shaped by the requirements for insurance claims, rather than information required

for response and improving resilience. Only a third of retirement villages actively

involve residents in emergency planning and implementation. Over a third of villages

reported they had no, or very generalised, arrangements for contingencies such as the

need to evacuate dwellings.

These latter retirement villages repeatedly state that the onus is on residents to respond

and make arrangements in these conditions as they are ‘living independently’. This

approach sits uneasily with the recently introduced requirements around insurance

provision in response to the Canterbury earthquakes, although it is not necessarily non-

compliant with them. Perhaps more importantly, this sits uneasily with the secure and

safe lifestyle being promoted by the retirement village sector. More than a third of

retirement villages with no or very generalised response plans to adverse events also

tend to put interventions by civil defence agencies at the centre of their response. In

some cases, there appear to be assumptions that local schools and halls will be made

available as community evacuation centres. It is assumed that village residents, along

with residents in surrounding neighbourhoods, will be directed to and supported by civil

defence in these facilities.



The extent to which these assumptions are practical or realistic cannot be assessed. In

an event this will depend on the particular interplay of various factors. However, it

must be noted that retirement villages present some challenges for mainstream services

in the context of an adverse natural event.

Firstly, they have a diverse dwelling stock. People within apartments can, for instance,

require particular assistance in evacuation. Second, by their very nature, retirement

villages tend to be higher density than surrounding neighbourhoods. Their physical

layout and lack of consistent signage may make it difficult for emergency services to

quickly access residents. Some residents with sensory impairments or limited mobility

will have particular requirements if evacuations are to be efficient and effective.

Because retirement villages do not have a mix of age groups, the dynamics of local

networks as well as response in retirement villages will potentially be very different

from other types of neighbourhoods.



7. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Retirement villages do by virtue of their higher densities and the provision of collecting

infrastructure within the village, have real opportunities to build resilient infrastructure.

Because of their control over stock, they have the potential to provide alternative

dwellings on a transitional basis where necessary. Many have skilled managerial and

technical staff on-site who can facilitate rapid recovery. Many have skilled and active

resident populations. Some retirement villages are building on those advantages to

develop resilient villages.

To build on these advantages, it is important that the retirement village sector works

together to develop standard and systematic approaches:

To collecting information relevant to risk management and provision of support to

residents in the context of adverse natural events prepares detailed evacuation

process and temporary accommodation plans.

Incorporating resilience features such as on-site emergency heating, cooking,

lighting, water supply, and communications systems into communal infrastructure.

Actively engaging of residents in developing individual and village plans for

preparing for, responding to, and recovery from, adverse natural events.



REFERENCES

AARP Public Policy Institute, 2006, We can do better: Lessons Learned for Protecting

Older Persons in Disasters, http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/better.pdf

Ardalan, A. Mazaheri, M. Vanrooyen M. Mowafi, H. Nedjat, S. Holakouie Naiei, K

and Russell, M., 2010, ‘Post-disaster Quality of Life Among Older Survivors Five

Years After The Bam Earthquake: Implications for Recovery Policy’. Ageing and

Society 31.

Carswell, S., 2011, What we have learnt. Aged Care provider learnings on responding

to the February Earthquake in Canterbury Eldernet and Canterbury District Health

Board, Christchurch.

CDC Healthy Aging Program, 2006, CDC’s Disaster Planning Goal: Protect

Vulnerable Elderly, CDC Healthy Aging Program, Health Benefits ABCs: William

F. Benson, [email protected]

DBH and Retirement Commission, 2011, Proposed variations in the Retirement

Villages Code of Practice 2008.

Durant, T. J., 2011, ‘The Utility of Vulnerability and Social Capital Theories in

Studying the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Elderly’. Journal of Family Issues,

32, 10.

HelpAge International, 2008, From Disaster to Development: How Older People

Recovered from the Asian Tsunamii, HelpAge International, London.

Insurance Council of New Zealand, 2011, The Cost of Disaster Events,

http://www.icnz.org.nz/current/weather/. Accessed 1 March 2012.

James, B. and K. Saville-Smith, 2011, Retirement Villages Act 2003 Monitoring Project

Residents’ Perspectives, report prepared for the Retirement Commissioner. Wellington,

Retirement Commission.

Jones Lang LaSalle, 2013, New Zealand Retirement Village Database.

McKercher, A., and C. Pearson, 2001, Factors Causing Flooding to be New Zealand’s

Number One Hazard., NIWA, Wellington

Manning, M., Chapman, R., Hales, S., Howden-Chapman, P., King, D., Kjellstrom, T.,

Lawrence, J., and G. Lindsay 2011 Synthesis: Community vulnerability, resilience

and adaptation to climate change in New Zealand NZCCRI-2011-01, Victoria

University of Wellington

Martin Jenkins, 2010a, Monitoring Project on the Operators of Retirement Villages

Report prepared for the Retirement Commission. Wellington, Retirement

Commission.

Martin Jenkins, 2010b, Monitoring Project on the Operators of Retirement Villages:

Appendix 1 Survey Results Report prepared for the Retirement Commission.

Wellington, Retirement Commission.

Miller, A., and B. Arquilla, 2008. “Chronic Diseases and Natural Hazards: Impact of

Disasters on Diabetic, Renal, and Cardiac Patients.” Prehospital and Disaster

Medicine 23, 2.

Ministry for the Environment, 2008, Meeting the Challenge of Future Flooding in New

Zealand, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

Ministry for the Environment, 2008a, Quantification of the Flood and Erosion

Reduction Benefits, and Costs of Climate Change Mitigation Measures in New

Zealand, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/better.pdf

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.icnz.org.nz/current/weather/



Ministry of Social development, 2011, The Business of Ageing: Realising the economic

potential of older people in New Zealand: 2011-2051, Ministry of Social

Development and Office for Senior Citizens, Wellington.

Reese, S., Johnston, D., Tuohy, R., Becker, J., and M. Coomer, 2011, Flood

Perceptions, Preparedness and Response to Warnings in Kaitaia, Northland, New

Zealand: Results from surveys in 2006 and 2009, GNS Science Report 2011/10,

GNS, Wellington.

Smart, G.M., and A., McKerchar, 2010, More flood disasters in New Zealand. Journal

of Hydrology (NZ) 49(2): 69-78.

Tuohy, R. 2008, ‘Disasters and Older Adults: Case studies of vulnerability and

resilience’. MA research project, Health Psychology. Massey University.

World Health Organization, 2008, Older Persons in Emergencies: An Active Ageing

Perspective. WHO, France.



ANNEX A: SURVEY OF RETIREMENT VILLAGES



Retirement Village Housing Resilience Survey

A Component of the Public Good Research Programme


The Community Resilience and Good Ageing Project seeks better outcomes for communities and older people when affected by adverse natural events - flooding, slips, bushfire, earthquake, or extreme weather.

Protection during and recovery after these events has a lot to do with the resilience of housing. Although the community housing stock is relatively small in New Zealand, it is very important to some of our most vulnerable older people.

This survey collects information about retirement village dwellings/units. This and surveys with older owner occupiers and other housing providers will help identify ways New Zealand’s housing infrastructure can be made more resilient. One survey should be completed for each village. If you manage more than one village and we have not provided additional surveys please contact us and we can send out extras.

If you need clarification about specific questions, or if you have any questions about the research in general please don’t hesitate to contact us at CRESA.

You can contact Kay or Ruth on free-phone 0508 427372. Alternatively email Ruth on [email protected]

To see more about the resilience project and our other research with older people around good homes you can visit our website www.goodhomes.co.nz

Please return the questionnaire by 27 September 2013. There is a pre-paid envelope addressed to us enclosed. If you lose it don’t hesitate to call us. If you would prefer to provide your response via an electronic form please email Ruth

on [email protected] and we can arrange this for you.

For electronic copies please return via email to [email protected] hard copies should be returned via the prepaid envelope to

CRESA PO Box 11260 Wellington 6142

http://www.goodhomes.co.nz/





Your village

1. Where is your village located?

Village address: __________________________________

2. Is the village within a 10 minute walk of a local bus route or train station …?

1 Yes 2 No

3. How many residents live in the village?

Number: _________________ Housing in the village.

4. How many units/dwellings are in the village in total?

Number: _________________

5. How many of each type of dwelling/unit are in this village?

Type Number in Village (If none note zero)

Number of Units

Stand-alone dwellings

___________________

____ bedsits/studio ____ 1 bedroom ____ 2 bedroom ____ 3 bedrooms or more

Semi-detached dwellings

___________________


Low-rise multi-unit block

___________________


Tower/Apartment block

___________________




6. When was the village built? (if the village was built in stages please tick all that apply)

1 Before 1978 2 1978-2006 3 After 2006

Comments (if any) __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

7. What is the main form of tenure for residents? (please tick one box only)

1 License to occupy 2 Owned unit title 3 Rental 4 Other ___________________________________

8. Are residents within a 10-15 minute walk or five minute drive to:

1 A beach from the village 2 A river/stream from the village 3 A lake or wetlands from the village

9. Does the village have a view of a beach, river/steam, lake or wetlands?

1 Yes 2 No

10. Is there a rest home or aged care facility attached to the village?

1 Yes 2 No

Adverse Natural Events – Impacts on Your Housing Stock

11. Do you keep a record of any adverse natural events (e.g. flooding, slips, earthquake extreme weather event etc) that have affected the village site?

1 Yes 2 No

12. If yes, which of the following details do you record? (please tick all that apply)

1 Damage/loss caused 2 Whether an insurance claim was filed 3 Insurance claim amount 4 Remedial work required 5 Time to complete repairs 6 Whether tenants/residents needed to evacuate 7 Number of tenants/residents affected 8 Tenants/residents rehoused elsewhere 9 Whether there was interruption to key services e.g. water supply, electrical

supply, sewerage, village roading and footpaths, village communal facilities 10 Other (please specify) ______________________________

Comments/detail (if any) _____________________________________________



Thinking about adverse natural events over the last ten years

13. In the last ten years have any of the dwellings/units in your village been affected by? (please tick all that apply)

1 Storm/thunderstorm/cyclone/damaging wind 2 Flooding 3 Tornado 4 Landslide 5 Coastal erosion, storm surge or high tides 6 heavy snowfall, snow storm or blizzard 7 Earthquake 8 Volcanic eruption 9 Unsure 10 Other (please specify) ______________________________

14. Have any of the dwellings/units in your village ever had water inside from leaks in the roof, windows or flooding during adverse natural events? (Please tick one box only)

1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure

15. Have any of your village dwellings/units had damage done to the foundations, exterior walls or roof from adverse natural events? (Please tick one box only)

1 Yes 2 No 3 Unsure

16. Have any of your residents/tenants had to be evacuated in the last ten years because of an adverse natural event? (Please tick one box only)

1 Yes 2 No

Adverse Natural Events – Residents/Tenants

17. Do you have a register of residents or tenants … (Please tick one box only for each category)

a. Dependant on electrical supply for life supporting

equipment 1 Yes 2 No

b. With a mobility disability 1 Yes 2 No c. With a hearing and/or sight disability 1 Yes 2 No d. With other disabilities 1 Yes 2 No e. Requiring medication 1 Yes 2 No

18. Do you have residents’ or tenants’ next-of-kin or similar contact in case of emergency evacuation? (Please tick one box only)

1 Yes 2 No

Please turn the page to complete the final section



Adverse Natural Events – Emergency Planning

19. Are residents provided with a face-to-face induction, which includes emergency planning, when they move into one of your dwellings/units? (Please tick one box only)

1 Yes 2 No Comments/detail (if any) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20. How is emergency planning and implementation done? (please tick all that apply)

1 The residents committee deals with that 2 We have a dedicated staff member 3 We have a management committee of staff to develop and update plans 4 We have a joint staff and resident committee to develop and update plans 5 Other (please specify) ______________________________

21. If you need to evacuate what are the arrangements for evacuation? (Please tick one box only)

1 Residents are responsible for finding alternative shelter if evacuation is required 2 There is an evacuation facility on-site (please describe below) 3 There is a plan to evacuate residents to a facility off-site (please describe below)

Detail about on-site and/or off-site evacuation facility (if any) _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22. Are there any of the following on-site? (Please tick one box only for each category)

a. A generator(s) to maintain power if the electricity is cut 1 Yes 2 No

b. Alternative water supply e.g. water tanks 1 Yes 2 No c. On-site sewerage system independent from town

sewerage system 1 Yes 2 No

23. If you have any other comments, or wish to comment on something not covered in the survey please feel free to do so here or on the back page.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you. We appreciate your help.

Please check that you have filled out all the relevant questions and then post the completed survey back to us in the prepaid envelope provided.

CRESA

PO Box 11260 Wellington 6142

Retirement Village Housing Resilience...

Documents

Transcript of Retirement Village Housing Resilience...